From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 12 13:49:28 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D2F16A419 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:49:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from gaia.nimnet.asn.au (nimbin.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.45.143]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7C813C44B for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:49:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from localhost (smithi@localhost) by gaia.nimnet.asn.au (8.8.8/8.8.8R1.5) with SMTP id AAA08474; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:49:02 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:49:02 +1100 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: Peter Jeremy In-Reply-To: <20071211093653.GN11310@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: rihad , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pipe queues X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:49:28 -0000 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:31:00PM +0400, rihad wrote: > >Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:21:17AM +0400, rihad wrote: > >>> And if I _only_ want to shape IP traffic to given speed, without > >>> prioritizing anything, do I still need queues? This was the whole point. > >> No you don't. I'm using pipes without queues extensively to simulate > >> WANs without bothering with any prioritisation. Well, a pipe specified without a specific queue option uses a queue of the default size of 50 slots, right? > >Great! One fine point remains, though: > ># ipfw pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s > >will use a queue of 50 slots by default. What good are they for, if I > >didn't ask for queuing in the first place? I think others have pointed out out that you need to queue packets for bandwidth limitation, so a queue size of 0 makes no sense for that. > 'queue' is used in two distinct ways within the ipfw/dummynet code: > 1) There's a "queue" object created with 'ipfw queue NNN config ...' > This is used to support WF2Q+ to allow a fixed bandwidth to be > unevenly shared between different traffic types. > 2) There is a "queue" option on the "pipe" object that defines a FIFO > associated with the pipe. Yes it's confusing at first using the same keyword for a rule action and for a configuration option, especially when an option of queues is 'pipe pipe_nr' and an option for both pipes and queues is 'queue {slots|size}' Your para above wouldn't go amiss in ipfw(8) for clarification, though on the tenth reading it does start to sink in .. === > Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement > an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. exetel good, fixed IP, roll yer own (if you don't owe optus your soul :) cheers, Ian